---
mmm hmmm
On Mar 30, 4:35 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you cite any examples Tom?
>
> I can give you a dozen just off the top of my head, where socialists stole
> an election; the first one that comes to mind is that communist Al Franken
> in Minnesota, and how he and the Democratic Party stole that election,
> plain and simple.
>
> Tom, I dare you to watch this video:
>
> http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > False.
>
> > Voter surpression comes from the right wingnuts and GOP, and serves to
> > prevent Democrats, minorities, and the poor from voting.
>
> > The agenda is Republican skewed election rigging.
>
> > On Mar 30, 2:24 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Lil' Moonbat Tommy cut and pasted:
>
> > > *"There is one pointed difference in the behavior we can expect from the
> > > two sides in the general election. Whereas liberal groups have generally
> > > been interested in increasing voter turnout, conservatives have tended to
> > > want to suppress it."*
> > > **
> > > *============*
> > > **
> > > Hardly. What conservatives demand, is that American nationals over the
> > > age of 18 cast one vote. This is the big distinction, as socialist
> > > elitists with a far left Anti-American agenda realize that they are in
> > the
> > > minority, and the only way that they can win an election, is by only one
> > of
> > > two ways:
>
> > > (1) Gerrymandering the voting districts thereby rigging a geo-political
> > > region to where a large proportion of Moonbats are within the
> > > gerrymandered region; and/or:
>
> > > (2) By any means possible, to include voter intimidation, and voter
> > > fraud.
>
> > > Wacko Left, Socialist-Elitist Moonbats hate this! Thus, the reason for
> > the
> > > nasty hateful prevaricate, yet vociferous outcry!
>
> > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > Suppress the Vote!
> > > > By JIM ARKEDIS and LINDSAY MARK LEWIS
> > > > The grip of the super PAC on the Republican primary season has been
> > > > well-documented. They are wrecking balls operating outside the
> > > > candidates' direct control, fueled by massive influxes of cash from a
> > > > handful of wealthy patrons. The millions spent by the pro-Santorum
> > > > Red, White and Blue Fund and the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our
> > > > Future, have prolonged their respective candidates' rivalry with the
> > > > front-runner, Mitt Romney, whose own Restore Our Future has bludgeoned
> > > > the competition from Iowa to Florida to Michigan.
>
> > > > And that's just the start. In the general election, super PACs will
> > > > evolve into full-blown shadow campaigns. This transition is already
> > > > underway, with the super PACs supporting Republican candidates
> > > > beginning to take on voter persuasion operations — like sending direct
> > > > mail and making phone calls — that have traditionally been reserved
> > > > for a campaign operation or party committee.
>
> > > > The phenomenon won't be isolated on the right. President Obama
> > > > recently embraced the outside groups that he had rejected, saying that
> > > > he would not unilaterally disarm. The president has dispatched one of
> > > > his most trusted aides to run Priorities USA, the White House's super
> > > > PAC of choice.
>
> > > > There is one pointed difference in the behavior we can expect from the
> > > > two sides in the general election. Whereas liberal groups have
> > > > generally been interested in increasing voter turnout, conservatives
> > > > have tended to want to suppress it.
>
> > > > In the general election, right wing groups may try to use super PACs
> > > > to affect the vote in this fall's election. And if we fail to
> > > > recognize super PACs' enormous potential to suppress voting before it
> > > > happens — and don't regulate them appropriately — millions of
> > > > Americans could be disenfranchised on Nov. 6, 2012.
>
> > > > Who Votes?
> > > > A series about the complexities of voters and voting.
> > > > Super PACs are the perfect vehicle for voter suppression, thanks to
> > > > two crucial advantages they have over traditional campaigns. First,
> > > > they operate in a legal black hole of opaque disclosure requirements
> > > > that allows them to disguise their activities. Second, a candidate's
> > > > campaign is shielded from a super PACs' duplicitous actions by a legal
> > > > firewall that prevents coordination between the two entities. These
> > > > features afford a super PAC plausible deniability: they can suppress
> > > > the vote while claiming to have done something else, and the candidate
> > > > can easily disavow a super PAC's actions.
>
> > > > Check out Restore Our Future's filings with the Federal Election
> > > > Commission, and it's easy to see how vague terms could mask reality.
> > > > While a super PAC must fill out a form for every expenditure, each can
> > > > be classified as "voter communication," "media production," or "direct
> > > > mail."
>
> > > > The devil is in what those terms might be hiding. "Voter
> > > > communication" could actually be a robocall that targets African
> > > > Americans, reassuring them that Obama has the election in the bag. A
> > > > "direct mail" piece sent to senior citizens' homes might encourage
> > > > them to vote on Wednesday, Nov. 7, just 24 hours too late.
>
> > > > This isn't just something we dreamed up. For decades conservative
> > > > groups have proven that voter suppression is cheap and effective: It
> > > > cost just a few thousand dollars for Allen Raymond, a Republican
> > > > operative, to make harrassing calls, jamming New Hampshire Democratic
> > > > Party phone lines during the 2002 Congressional campaigns, for which
> > > > he spent three months in prison; in 2006, the Republican National
> > > > Committee paid for fliers in Virginia that told African Americans to
> > > > "skip this vote;" Paul Schurick, an aide to former Republican Maryland
> > > > Governor Robert Ehrlich was convicted of using robocalls that told
> > > > African Americans not to vote in 2010.
>
> > > > Should a super PAC get caught doing something like this, its legal
> > > > separation from a campaign means the crime could never drag down a
> > > > candidate or party. "Yes, I'm aware of the allegations against
> > > > Cornering Our Future," a candidate might explain, "but as you know, my
> > > > campaign cannot coordinate its activities with a super PAC, so I
> > > > consider the matter closed."
>
> > > > And the candidate would be legally correct.
>
> > > > These are also key differences in accountability. When a candidate or
> > > > national party runs an ad, sends mail or makes a phone call, those
> > > > responsible for the activity are relatively easy to find and
> > > > investigate. Even in that context, hundreds of irregularities take
> > > > place every election cycle.
>
> > > > More importantly, parties and candidates have reputations to protect,
> > > > and want to live on to fight another day. Not so for a super PAC.
> > > > Terminating one is easy: its officers file a notice with the F.E.C.,
> > > > which then certifies that it has ceased operation. The super PAC's
> > > > only requirement is to maintain copies of its records for three years.
>
> > > > That's why most super PACs will disappear on the morning after the
> > > > votes are counted. There is little incentive to observe election laws
> > > > if you can just close up shop.
>
> > > > The rise of the super PAC parallels a subtle but concerted effort by
> > > > conservative groups to suppress the vote, which are disguised as
> > > > efforts to defeat exceedingly rare voter fraud. A 2011 study by
> > > > N.Y.U.'s Brennan Center found that 14 Republican-dominated states have
> > > > approved new legislation requiring higher standards for voter
> > > > identification. The center estimates that five million people could
> > > > find it more difficult to vote this year.
>
> > > > There's a close connection between these efforts and super PAC
> > > > funders, too. In some 30 cases, state lawmakers received model "voter
> > > > fraud" legislation from a conservative networking group called the
> > > > American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC has received funding from
> > > > Koch Industries, which is run by the conservative siblings of the same
> > > > name who have reportedly pledged $60 million to defeat President Obama
> > > > this fall. Given donation restrictions to campaigns, much of that
> > > > money would have to go to super PACs.
>
> > > > Charles Rex Arbogast/Associated Press
> > > > At a news conference in Trenton in November 1993, New Jersey
> > > > Governor-elect Christie Whitman defended her campaign against
> > > > accusations of voter suppression.
> > > > An infamous case from the recent past serves as a cautionary tale. In
> > > > 1993, Christine Todd Whitman defeated incumbent New Jersey Governor
> > > > Jim Florio to become the first female Republican governor in American
> > > > history. She squeaked through by one percent, overcoming a deficit of
> > > > some nine points in the final week of the campaign.
>
> > > > But in the days following the election, long-time Republican operative
> > > > and Whitman campaign manager Ed Rollins did something truly bizarre:
> > > > he started bragging about his secret weapon, suppressing the
> > > > (presumably Democratic) vote.
>
> > > > With just $500,000 in hand, Rollins — who worked for Michele Bachmann
> > > > in this year's Republican primary — was shockingly frank in a 1993
> > > > Times article about how he instructed grassroots organizers to
> > > > approach ministers at African American churches, then as now centers
> > > > of political gravity for black get-out-the-vote efforts. In return for
> > > > sizable contributions to a minister's favorite project, all church
> > > > leaders had to do was not mention the election from the pulpit.
>
> > > > New Jersey and other states have a long-standing practice of handing
> > > > out "walking around money," a
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment